Pretty much this. Let's be honest. No one involved in this patent-war-on-twelve-fronts gives a flying fuck at a rolling donut about "the public interest."

When rendering an opinion, an admninstrative law judge at the ITC is required to consider the public interest. Most likely, bith sides in the instant investigation will have briefed the judge with the aim of convincing him that their particular position is in the public interest. In many cases (I don't know if this was one, although it seems likely given the scope of the investigation) there an internal ITC lawyer is appointed specifically to argue "the public interest" case before the judge.

They need to go ahead with the ban. The only thing that's ever made the giants in the sandbox ever stop and go "wait a sec..." was MAD.

This is wishful thinking at the least. You're assuming this will make the giants come to the same conclusion as you and react in the way you would. However, if they followed that logic, this wouldn't be happening in the first place. Patterns of behavior indicate that the giants will instead react by putting even more resources into litigation and acquiring patents. Also, this isn't MAD. The legal industry would profit from this without the risk of being whipped out in the crossfire. In contrast, in a real M

I think he's saying it's ironic to hear that specific line of argument from a company like Microsoft; that patent infringement should be disregarded as long as the product fosters a competitive market does not have many players. I hopefully shouldn't have to explain why that is both funny and ironic.

My understanding is that the Xbox 360 uses Windows Media Audio 10 Professional for all system and game audio.

If the main issue is the H.264 video codec, why can't they just switch to Microsoft WMV/VC-1 or one of the many open source ones available? Sounds like a simple software system update to me if its just the video apps doing it. If H.264 is used on game discs then MS needs to payup.

How do you implement this... simple solution... when most Xboxes are not net connected. Plus that doesnt solve the problem of the last five years games which have h.264 on disc. MS would still be noncompliant.

My understanding is that the Xbox 360 uses Windows Media Audio 10 Professional for all system and game audio.

If the main issue is the H.264 video codec, why can't they just switch to Microsoft WMV/VC-1 or one of the many open source ones available? Sounds like a simple software system update to me if its just the video apps doing it. If H.264 is used on game discs then MS needs to payup.

h.264 is everywhere, and yes, the Xbox must use them for things like YouTube and whatnot.

Reminds me of a story concerning the game "MULE" (an excellent little multi-player economy-based game set around the building of a new colony). I liked this game a lot and often played against my brothers and friends. We'd play very competitively, each trying to maximize our own profits. Then I met a friend at college and happened to mention this game. She said, "Oh, I love that game too. What was the richest colony you made?" Until she asked, it hadn't occurred to me that you could play the game a different way: cooperatively, in order to achieve the best good for the colony as a whole.

I wonder when humanity will figure that out too.

(This is not an endorsement of "socialism" or "communism" or anything like that, or even a criticism of competition. It's just a note that we tend to focus too much on little-picture, selfish goals instead of big-picture ones. Compete to make the best thing, rather than compete to kill the competition.)

Is that like playing Risk where no one attacks each other? Of course it yields many many more armies and everyone lives in harmony. But it is completely uninteresting and lacks creativity. May as well live without possessions like a Franciscan.

'Shaw rejected that argument, finding that the public interest in enforcing intellectual property rights outweighs any potential economic impact on video game console buyers.'

This guy is seriously disconnected from the real world if he thinks that enforcing intellectual property rights is more important to the public than the availability of a popular product. As far as I can tell, the only people benefiting from the escalating levels of IP enforcement are the lawyers and cartels, while the public are getting shafted as the draconian measures erode their freedoms.

No, it's not him, it's the law, that is that disconnected. The law thinks that upholding someone's rights is more important than playing a video game.

Copyright is not a right, its a privilege granted by the people to foster innovation. The law is clearly failing and desperately needs to be fixed before innovators throw up their hands in despair and move to a country with a less ridiculous system.

Micro$oft just needs to pay up as the judge ruled to get their consoles out of customs or wait for the appeal and not have them in the market. If they don't want to pay in the future, simply remove the offending IP from any new consoles. It may not be profitable for Micro$oft's game console business, but it is what it is.

My Guess is that Micro$soft will eventually pay up, but right now they are hoping to reduce the supply of units in the pipeline by slowing production. The game console business is not

Enforcing intellectual property rights means charging us more for the same thing, that is against our interests. It is in the interests of entrenched players, they benefit from IP rights but the public just gets hosed by them. If we did away with the patent system competition would keep technology advancing. There is always a better way to do something and always someone willing to do it. Open source software proves this point. The patent system needs to be abolished and patent lawyers rendered into Soyl

The obvious difference between Cold War and this is that here, everyone rather seems to say things like "take THAT! now how do you like it, bitch?", with no end in sight. Presumably because patent lawsuits aren't up to the level of mutual assured destruction yet, at least for the major players.

Both sides are assholes on this one. They seriously need to overhaul the US patent system, the balance has been tipped (for a long time) to where it stifles innovation way, way more than it fosters it.

About the only things that deserve patents are fundamental discoveries and drugs that are unique and cost hundreds of millions to develop and test. And even then, just provide some kind of "formula patent" that only lasts 5-6 years.

Most patents are fundamentally flawed because they rely on a small leap from someone else's existing work. Sure, if you just step outside the box and totally invent zero point energy in your mad scientist lab you should get a patent and make $5 trillion from it. But most "inventions" are just trifling little bullshit extensions of something that exists already.

About the only things that deserve patents are fundamental discoveries and drugs that are unique and cost hundreds of millions to develop and test. And even then, just provide some kind of "formula patent" that only lasts 5-6 years.

I know of very few cases when a fundamental discovery was made by a commercial company, they usually shy away from anything that takes a decade or more to develop. Usually this is funded by the goverment which is supposed to have a longer term view.

Keep in mind that Universities, one of the biggest centers of innovation (often government funded), tend to have massive patent portfolios. They license them out to companies and that in turn funds more fundamental research. So if we killed the system completely we would also have to restructure how basic research is done... which would probably be a good, thing.. just pointing out that corporations are not the only ones utilizing this system.

Keep in mind that Universities, one of the biggest centers of innovation (often government funded), tend to have massive patent portfolios. They license them out to companies and that in turn funds more fundamental research^W^W^W bigger stadium. So if we killed the system completely we would also have to restructure how basic research is done... which would probably be a good, thing.. just pointing out that corporations are not the only ones utilizing this system.

I think the point mozumder was trying to make is that a lot of basic research is funded by government grants. Corporations are very happy to throw money at a discovery that seems likely to produce more money immediately, but are generally loath to spend money on discoveries that are not directly something they can sell.

An example Carl Sagan brought up is Maxwell's equations on electromagnetic fields. Extremely important to radar, television, cell phones, and a million other major technologies today. His equations are fundamental to trillions and trillions of dollars in profits today. But the equations themselves are just knowledge and wouldn't turn a profit directly. In today's climate, Maxwell would be funded by grants from the government, corporations would be unlikely to fund him.

No, all fundamental discoveries are made by government. Commercial entities have never invented anything.

That is because profit is incompatible with social benefit.

We need to encourage more funding from government through taxation of corporation. Let's give government more control over corporations.

There are intermediate entities like old AT&T labs where invented transistor was invented. Note that because AT&T was a monopoly the patent was licensed for only a nominal fee. If it was a pure commercial company expect the computer revolution delayed by a decade.

Edison's lightbulb is a really bad example. Edison took something which was already working in a lab (wire emitting light when you send electricity through it) and made it actually useful. Before Edison it was a scientific curiousity.

About the only things that deserve patents are fundamental discoveries and drugs that are unique and cost hundreds of millions to develop and test. And even then, just provide some kind of "formula patent" that only lasts 5-6 years.

Abolish patents entirely and replace private research with publically funded research. The hard work (discovering new drug targets) is done by the NIH anyway. All pharma does are the clinical studies which are pretty much rote. They could easly be done by the public as well. And if we take the profit motive out of the situation, maybe we won't see 100,000 [fda.gov] annual deaths due to adverse drug reactions.

Patents exit to encourage private investors to invest in research. But if we directly fund research, we need no patents. The best part is that when the public does all the work, we'll get to keep all the profits too.

Oh well, OK. I guess I was wrong then. Thanks for setting me straight. It's not like I've worked in biology for a decade or anything. It's not like I've taken medical pharmacology classes where they explained exactly who is responsible for what part of the drug discovery process. Nah, your simple assertion without evidence is all I need to change my mind.

Oh hell, I have, and I know what I'm talking about. And it's easily verifiable if you go to the library and read a book or two about the pharmaceutical industry. The fact is the pharmaceutical industry contributes very little to the process, and pockets the vast majority of the profits. Deny this if you like, it only illustrates your ignorance.

Because someone is shitty person doesn't mean they are a shitty teacher.

I had a creationist nutjob for a science teacher back in high school - we did the bare minimum for the evolution part of the curriculum, the read the text book while I twiddle my thumbs approach. However, he taught me mechanics and electromagnetism very well.

And anyway are you sure she's doing a shitty job? Maybe that's exactly what her employer wants her to do?

I am guessing you have never worked in R&D. It is not quite as extreme as Hatta indicates, but a great deal of the heavy lifting in drug research is indeed done by government funded entities, with the liability and market centric tasks done by the drug companies.

Generally people don't go into research because of a 'profit motive'. Research jobs do not pay all that well, esp the ones on the 'heavy lifting' side of thing, so they tend to be staffed by people who are motived through doing good research and building reputation.

The British NHS has been a state-funded venture from the start (although there is currently legislation in place to change this) so the doctors do not gain/lose anything through profit motive, their general motivation to do their job is the Hypocratic oath and general ethical outlook. Suggesting all doctors are driven by profit seems to be a bit insulting to the profession. Hell, even lawyers do pro bono work, and they're the ones I'd classify as "profit driven" if anyone.

You only think it would be like that because you've been brainwashed by your corporations. Those of us who live in countries where the doctors and hospitals are government owned and operated know for a fact that your statement is patently absurd. Our doctors and hospitals do strive to do their best, despite the sole financial motive being "not making a loss".

And profit motive is what makes a doctor or hospital desire to do a better job (and draw customers away from the competition). If the profit motive did not exist and they knew they would get paid anyway, even if they did a shitty job, then they'd be like government-employed teachers.

Actually heir motive is not doing a better job, heir motive is making sure your HMO gets billed as much or as little as possible(depending on the allegiance of said hospital to your HMO). If you want an example of an actual profit motive, then look at parts of medicine that is not covered by health insurance - plastic surgery is probably the only one. Otherwise, doctors in hospitals are already those bureaucracy employed people, just like teachers.

unfortunately, turnabout play does nothing for the customer or the nation.

The patent law is only half the problem. The other half is the business practices that these companieschoose to take.

Given the inertia in changing the patent system, (good luck seeing that in your life time), the import bans are (arguably) the way to go.

Only by forcing these things into the nuclear condition can you ever get big companies to realize that cheap and perfunctorycross-licensing is the only way to assure there are no costly misadventures down the line.

Once it become the norm to cross-license (or very cheaply license), and the companies realize its moretrouble and less revenue than it is worth to go after someone for these tiny little improvements andcombinations of existing technology, they will perhaps stop beating each other up with lawyers.

They could then do it all on line, via email, and maybe they would simply resort to publishing these inconsequentialcompilations of technology, so that nobody else could patent them and let the chips fall where they may.

Its fitting that Microsoft got caught in this trap. Now if we can catch Apple's next phone and block itat the ports maybe some progress can be made in this direction.

I think we're seeing some wide cracks in the patent system if a product can be produced right up to EOL before an import ban can be thrown at it.

Looking at it rationally, how could it possibly work any other way?

Given that there are patents, gazillions of them, how can you possibly read thru each and every on to find out if your new product might have run afoul of some clause in some obscure patent, especially when the language of those patents is purposely written to be vague and all inclusive? You would have to spend two years of patent lawyer time researching what it took you two months to breadboard up in the lab.

These things are always going to be discovered after the fact.

While developing your new gizmo, you only look at the obvious competitors. (Some avoid looking at all, due to the risk of idea pollution).

Microsoft does not see Motorola as a competitor in game consoles, so they ignore them. Same for John Deere tractors. No game consoles. Ignore them.

But then they make the mistake of trying to block Motorola phones, and Moto starts digging around in its bag of patents for a club to hit Microsoft with.Would Moto spend that time and money without the initial provocation? I'm guessing not.

Do you really think it's a good ban to prevent all motorola android devices from being imported because they can be used to organize a meeting ? An eye for an eye, bitches.

Exactly.

Would Motorola spend all this time tearing down an XBox and comparing every tiny detail against each of their mountain of patents without provocation? Where is the business case for that? Pay the Motorola lawyers to prevent Microsoft from making a profit? How does that help Moto? Does it protect their game console business?

Moto only sued because they were sued for offering a portable way of performing a perfectly normal business activity via electronic communications.

Do you really think it's a good ban to prevent all motorola android devices from being imported because they can be used to organize a meeting

Well, from an economic impact point of view, I bet that having fewer meetings organized would result in a vast improvement in productivity, and so society as a whole benefits, so yeah - sounds like a plan. I do hope that Motorola also has a (different) patent on meetings, though, so that it can prevent importation of WP7 phones - then we're good.

Well maybe if Microsoft didn't want to be victims of broken patent law, they should have done something about it... like lobbying to fix the patent system. Corporations are good at lobbying about stuff they care about and Microsoft is no exception - they both lobby for what they want and they've also exploited the broken patent system when it suited them in the past.

The public won't fix the patent system, politicians only listen to the corporate wallets today. So let's make bad laws work against corporations and then maybe these corporations will try to change the laws.

Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Motorla and others should all be victimized by patent law as much as possible. Just like the MPAA/RIAA should be made victims of bad copyright law. Then things will change for the good of the public.

you demand that all software patents come complete with working prototype source code.

I am told that there are a thousand mousetrap patents in the patent office, each one with blueprint describing how to build one. Now, if we use the same approach for software patents, you should be able to create the same concept in a different way - eg, trapping mice, or maybe sliding something to unlock a screen.

As it is, software patents simply patent the concept, and they are usually as vague as possible. It is also easy to submit a thousand patents, making working code be supplied with it would make the number of submissions reduce, and would let us have open source code after the patent expires, and would allow people to implement the same thing as long as it didn't use the same codebase (or a significant amount of the code already patented).

It would possibly be the best compromise between no software patents and patenting some algorithms that are real inventions such a GSM radio or video codecs.

If I recall correctly, tech companies, including Microsoft, DID lobby for patent reform. Unfortunately the reforms they asked for were only given to the banking industry.

Sadly there is a bit of game theory here.. every company wants everyone else to play nice and back down, but will get the best return if they don't, so you end up with these arms races since no one wants to 'loose'.

I'm starting to think that Slashdot should go the NEOGAF route when it comes to new posters: no creating topics until you have at least somewhat participated in the community. The amount of astro-turfing in Google, MS and FB stories is starting to get ridiculous.

For what it's worth: you're completely wrong. This is the only way that the patent system can be made to work and can be fixed: MAD. Once there are smoldering craters everywhere, and the entire tech landscape is a glass parking lot, maybe the powers

The lawsuit in which Microsoft sued Motorola started long before Google began the process of acquiring Motorola Mobility and the judgment was made about a week before the acquisition. This lawsuit, in which Motorola sued Microsoft, began around the same time. Further, this was Motorola suing Microsoft, no Motorola Mobility, which Google fully acquired just a few days ago.

Google may not be perfect, but they're also not the assholes who started this shit; hell, they're not even involved int it. If anything, they're getting screwed on the Motorola Mobility deal because of this.

Further, this was Motorola suing Microsoft, no Motorola Mobility, which Google fully acquired just a few days ago.

On this point you are incorrect. From the ALJ's Recommendation (Footnote 1, p. 2): The complainants are Motorola Mobility, Inc. and General Instrument Corporation of Horsham, Pennsylania (collectively, "Motorola".)

It's ridiculous. Both this action by Motorola (Google) and the patent system in the U.S. Do you really think it's good ban all sales of XBOX360 because there is (supposedly) some video playback algorithm used in XBOX360 that Motorola has patents for?

The patent system is problematic, particularly as regards software patents.

OTOH, Motorola would have been foolish not to pursue actions like this that are available under the current legal regime when Microsoft was pursuing similar actions against Motorola. (e.g

Funny then that Wii is the # 1 best seller. It is the Atari or NES or SNES or PS1 or PS2 of this generation. The most popular platform. AND if microsoft didn't want Xbox banned, then I guess they shouldn't have pushed to have Motorola phones banned. Ya know..... you don't throw the first punch unless you're prepared to get a bloody nose in return.

Yeah, naturally I checked there, but the article still doesn't quite help me grok what fnord means. It feels kinda like a fancy way to say "FUD" (Fear Uncertainty Doubt/Despair), but I was hoping for a more natural explanation.

The other AC, with the huge post, is a good example...but the meaning of the term is still somewhat elusive.

1. Because of the games that are only available consoles.2. Because the cost of buying a new console every 6-8 years is less than the cost of keeping a computer current enough to play the new games when they come out.3. Because some people like simplicity, and when you buy a PS3 game, you know it will play on your PS3 without having to look up a single hardware requirement or driver compatibility crash bug report.

For me it's primarily number 1, although number 3 is nice at times. I play both PC and console

Seriously, why would anyone play games on a console anymore? You can do so much more to your games on the PC.

That wasn't directed at me, but here are my reasons:1) I don't want to have to dual boot so that I can play AAA games. It saves me a Windows license, the hard drive space, the annoyance of multi-booting, etc.2) Being able to just sit down on the couch with a beer, pop in a game, and play it lounging back without having a keyboard/mouse spread is relaxing. I do love playing PC games as well, but sometimes I just want to be sprawled. If I played competitively, I'd probably only play on PC.3) I'm growing ol

>>> All PC users got all DLC for free. All XBox users had to pay for the DLC.

If you want to make the argument "saving money" than the Xbox or any other console wins. A console costs about $200 plus tax. A gaming PC costs over 10 times that amount... plus frequent hardware updates (else the latest games won't work). Overall the gaming PC is a major eater of money, while a console is pretty cheap.

I bought PS3 for $200 (sale price) plus $18 for each game (greatest hits price) and have about 50 of t

to be fair, they bought it to defend against companies using their patents to get import bans of Android devices. Of which Microsoft is the biggest bully attacking them.

I guess they both tried to play hardball and demand licence fees, and when neither backed down, ended up in this stupid situation. Still, pass the popcorn, its amusing me and I hope it'll end up in a less stupid patent system.

However, all this shows is that Google is not all about "do no evil". The fact they paid 25 billion to buy a company only to turn around and use it as a vehicle to sue another competitor pretty much seals the fate that Google is about as cantankerous and vile as any other corporation.

Not only was this suit filed long before Google bought Motorola Mobility, but the ALJ's initial determination of patent violation also occurred before Google bought Motorola Mobility. The only thing that has happened after Goog

The judge is a moron. The public has no interest in stupid ass IP lawsuits.

No, the judge is applying the law as it stands.

The claim is that patents are "in the public interest" and that somehow they makes the world a better place.

But if you look at the sheer tangled web of patent lawsuits which cover Microsoft, Samsung, Apple, Motorolla, Google, and I'm not even sure who else... I'm not convinced that patents help the 'public', or helps to spur innovation. They have the opposite effect.

You can say you don't care, but the fact of the matter is there's huge swaths of products and technologies you couldn't get into the market with because you'd violate a gazillion patents and unless you have a couple of billion in licensing fees, you'd get sued into oblivion.

I believe one of the patents in this whole mess is "scheduling an appointment from a mobile device"... which is almost exactly the same as "scheduling an appointment in real life", and nearly almost exactly similar to "scheduling an appointment with a computer".

But, some drooling idiot decided that something that is well known but with a mobile device is an "invention". And then we get patent stupidity like this. (I'm sure there's more to it than that, but some days it feels like it.)

If that assertion is correct then one can conclude that Google is the real entity that just got the ITC to impose a ban on the xBox.

There are many reasons why this is false, the most obvious being that no entity has gotten the ITC to impose a ban on the Xbox. Instead, an ITC Administrative Law Judge has made a recommendation to the ITC that if the ITC upholds that same judge's earlier determination that the Xbox violates several Motorola Mobility patents, then the ITC should impose certain remedies, includi